Talk:Geth War
Hey everyone, this was my first article I've ever written. Feel free to edit as you see fit. I might have missed some information or accidentally misreported it; so please fix any errors. Dtemps123 03:53, March 9, 2010 (UTC) Millions vs billions Welp, despite the anon's disruptive behavior, I happen to believe the change to "millions" is correct. Millions upon millions must mean "a multiple of a million", not "a million millions," which is what "millions of millions" would imply. I did some searching on google, and couldn't find a case where someone said "x upon x" and meant it to mean "x^x" and not simply "x+x." If such examples exist, I'd be happy to read them. Dammej 21:13, May 27, 2010 (UTC) :It seems to me to boil down to what does the source say? Several of our other articles also say billions, so that's the route I'd be inclined towards for the sake of consistency, but the in-game sources are the ultimate arbiter here. SpartHawg948 21:15, May 27, 2010 (UTC) :Forgive me, since I don't have the game handy at work, but what other sources for this number are there? I looked through the Codex entries about the quarians on this site, and I couldn't find an article about the magnitude of the loss. Only that it killed a devastating number of quarians. Either number is enormously devastating. Dammej 21:18, May 27, 2010 (UTC) :(edit conflict x2)However you have to consider that the quarians had their homeworld and other colonies, by Tali's admission in the same conversation, and because Earth had around 11.5, I think, billion people in 2183, you have to consider that if the geth attacked every colony and the quarian homeworld, they killed billions of quarians. The quarians went from, a large population, to 17 million million, the current population of the Migrant Fleet. So billions is much more appropiate becuase you have to take it in context, and millions in this context, makes it seem like a lot less than it acutally was. And I have had instances, in my math classes where upon ment "x*x". That was in college. Lancer1289 21:18, May 27, 2010 (UTC) OK, maybe 'several' was a bit of an overstatement. Let me rephrase, the quarian article also supports billions, which is why I said the source would be the arbiter. But given that, as pointed out above, we're talking a large civilization spanning multiple worlds that was reduced to only 17 million, billions seems more plausible here than millions. SpartHawg948 21:22, May 27, 2010 (UTC) :Well, that quarian article was written by us as well, wasn't it? I'd assume that whatever the outcome of this discussion would apply there as well. I don't really think that the wiki would be a valid source of argument here. The -only- piece of information we have on how many people died is that line of dialogue from Tali. That's it. So I think the discussion should center around what she said. :As for the colony worlds argument, isn't that just speculation? We have no idea how large the quarian colony worlds had. Maybe they had 10 total worlds, each with a population of 50 million. That would put their initial population at 500 million, and still make being reduced to "only" 17 million a very real loss. Dammej 21:32, May 27, 2010 (UTC) To respond to Lancer: Again, I'd appreciate an example if you wouldn't mind. Any article I find on google clearly has the intention of "x upon x" to mean "x + x", not "x*x". Dammej 21:38, May 27, 2010 (UTC) :(edit conflict)That's true, but it's equally speculative to conclude millions upon millions without a source. The billions thing is more of an educated guess, based on the fact that there are multiple worlds, likely centered around a more densely populated homeworld, like Earth, which has a population in the billions. Again though, confirmation from in--game would render all such speculation moot. SpartHawg948 21:39, May 27, 2010 (UTC) :(edit conflict x2)You also have to consider the homeworld arguement. Earth had had a population of billions, so did the only other homeworld with a population we know of, the drell homeworld, Rakhana with 11 billion. Their homeworld having just a population of 50 million is very unreasonable. You have to make guess, and concluding that quarian colony worlds had just a population of just 50 million is also unreasonable. Lancer1289 21:44, May 27, 2010 (UTC) :That's still all speculation though. They don't give the population of the quarian homeworld, so we can't use that to determine what was meant, no matter how reasonable we believe our guesses to be. I only provided those numbers to show that they could be different. They're just guesses, like the numbers that you're providing. I don't think those guesses belong in the argument. Dammej 21:52, May 27, 2010 (UTC) ::I have found when the information was added about billions, Unic of the borg added the information way back on December 10, 2008. Then it was modified by Tullis here to its present, or mostly present version. Both of them made the same educated guess that we are arguing about, and both came to the same conclusions as the current information. And about an example, I can't rpovide the best one because I no longer own the textbook, and the college has since discontinued using it. However I remember because it came up again on an exam and it is basically said that you have to make an educated guess, with other supporting information. Lancer1289 21:55, May 27, 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)In this case, educated guesses may be the best we have. And it's no more of a guess than assuming their population was significantly less than that of a non-spacefaring species limited to only one world. SpartHawg948 21:56, May 27, 2010 (UTC) :I agree, we can only guess, with other information, it is more reasonable to assume billions rather than millions. Also there is nothing wrong with an educated guess. We have made them before on this site. Lancer1289 22:00, May 27, 2010 (UTC) :I kinda wish there were other participants in this discussion, heh. 2 v 1 is hardly fair. I still feel that "millions upon millions" means millions, and should be the correct answer. However, without more support, I'll go ahead and stop arguing. I don't suppose we could change it to be a direct quote and end any need for guessing, could we? Dammej 22:04, May 27, 2010 (UTC) ::We generally try to avoid quotes in articles. In this case I'd have to say no because this is the first time this issue has come up and didn't come up when the information was added in the quarian article. However when I heard the quote I put two and two together, and to me it came out at billions based on the game and scifi in general where homeworlds usually have much larger popualtions than most colonies. Most homeworlds of spacefaring races in scifi have well over 5 billion in population. I say most because I know I have seen a few where the population has been less, but I also remember that was after a disaster of some sort. However I can't make the final rulling here, so Spart care to comment. Lancer1289 22:12, May 27, 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing something. What would be directly quoted? (Apologies, I'm a bit under the weather and my thought processes are not what they normally would be). SpartHawg948 22:14, May 27, 2010 (UTC) :The source for the "millions upon millions" number of quarians being dead. Namely, a conversation with Tali. Dammej 22:16, May 27, 2010 (UTC) How about putting it in as a headquote? SpartHawg948 22:19, May 27, 2010 (UTC) :I see a headquote causing another argument, so my opinion is no headquote in an attempt to avoid another argument. However that is my opinion. Lancer1289 22:22, May 27, 2010 (UTC) :I can also see a headquote causing a lot of changing to millinos and then reverting for the same reasons we have been arguing about. Lancer1289 22:26, May 27, 2010 (UTC) millions upon millions just measn millions that are stacked, so millions upon millions could mean as little as four million (the absolute minimum a plural can be is two) so billions can be a stretch, and we dont know how many quarianstherer are, or how quarians breed it could be rediculously restrictive. ralok 22:43, May 27, 2010 (UTC) I think the headquote idea is really good actually, i dont see any problems that it could cause. ralok 22:46, May 27, 2010 (UTC) :(edit conflict)We do know how many quarians there are. 17 million. And this is considered a small number, a great reduction from the original total. So it's not as low as 4 million, and is likely much higher. And we do know that quarians aren't terribly restricted in their reproduction, as conversations with Tali demonstrate that they are capable of bearing multiple children, and having them fairly quickly, as a decree from the Conclave to have more kids is capable of turning around a population decline. SpartHawg948 22:47, May 27, 2010 (UTC) I'll voice my support for the headquote as well. It's true that it might drum up another argument like this, but isn't that good? If more people feel that million is the correct interpretation, they'll come to the talk page to discuss it. Which will likely pull in more people supporting that billion is the correct interpretation. Getting more opinions on how dialogue of the game should be interpreted isn't a bad thing. Bad for editors, maybe, but edit wars only last as long as it takes to ban someone, right? I admit I haven't had to deal with this, but if inconvenience for editors is the only downside, then I'd certainly be willing to help police the edits. Dammej 22:54, May 27, 2010 (UTC) (i hate that multiple people are capable of commenting at the same time)Oh i forgot about that, and sorry i sometimes forget the get the entire thought out before i finish writing. I see that there was great reduction in the number of quarians, but the thing is that a good number of quarians could have died from other causes AFTER the war. But i do have another issue, although tali is failry knowledgable on these sort of things we cant expect her to know the exact number of quarians dead from teh war, i am sure it was within the billions, and people (such as tali) are capable of understating things, that is something some people dont get about fictional characters, they are not omnipotent within their own universe ralok 22:54, May 27, 2010 (UTC) :This is true- which is one of the many reasons I'm reluctant to accept the death toll only being in the millions- it's based entirely on dialogue from a character who wasn't there. SpartHawg948 22:57, May 27, 2010 (UTC) ::I am the same boat, because there were probably billions of quarians before the war, and probalby billions died in the conflict, millions just makes no sense to me. Lancer1289 22:59, May 27, 2010 (UTC) Ok, so since there seems to be a majority in favor of the headquote, if someone has the exact quote handy feel free to add it. I don't atm, but can get it if needs be. I'd recommend adding it either at the very beginning, or at the top of the 'Progression' section. SpartHawg948 23:02, May 27, 2010 (UTC) I added the headquote at the top, since I feel it looks best there, but feel free to move it if looks more appropriate elsewhere. Thanks for the input, everyone! Dammej 23:28, May 27, 2010 (UTC) :Horay productivity, dont you just love it when a conversation actualyl goes somewhere instead of justdevolving into a screaming match beetwen all the participants. ralok 23:29, May 27, 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure whether this has been brought up already, but Mass Effect: Revelation offers good evidence that the death toll for the quarians was in the billions: "The quarians had neither the numbers nor the ability to stand against their former servants. In a short but savage war their entire society was wiped out. Only a few million survivors-'''less than one percent of their entire population'-escaped the genocide, fleeing their home world in a massive fleet, refugees forced to live in exile."'' (p.116, emphasis my own). Even if 1% of the original population survived aboard the Migrant Fleet, that would put that original population at 1,700,000,000 (One billion, seven hundred million). This of course assumes that 17,000,000 was the number of quarians that originally escaped on the Flotilla, but a figure of approximately that size doesn't strike me as implausible. Indeed, a number significantly higher than this seems likely, though this is all rather debatable.--Heliossoileh 13:58, August 13, 2010 (UTC) Removal of Information Ok I am still trying to figure out why the information under the Spoiler tag was removed as I don't see it as irrelevent as it doesn't state the information, it states how the information and how the player can listen to certain information. I question that it is irrelevent and I do say that it should be put back in. Maybe not in the format it was, but I do feel that should go back in. Lancer1289 23:52, December 6, 2010 (UTC) :Here's my thoughts. I'm of two minds here. I don't think the info that was removed was necessarily vital or critical, though I do find the reason for its re-removal a bit disingenuous (likely not intentionally so), as contrary to the following summary: "That part's irrelevant since Legion's info is already in the article.", no mention of Legion or the fact that the info is obtained from Legion is there. I think, if we want to specifically include Legion's info, it needs to be noted that it is Legion's info. That last part made sense to me, maybe it will to others too. However, if we do keep the article as-is (sans the info that keeps getting removed), the layout of the article needs to be adjusted. Having an article with only one headline, which then has three subheadlines, strikes me as just plain asinine. If there is only one main section, there really isn't a need for subsections, is there? The only reason they existed was because there was a section 1 and a section 2. Now section 2 is gone. SpartHawg948 00:06, December 7, 2010 (UTC) ::I meant the section was redundant. Why direct readers to other pages for certain info when that very info is already on this page, and not pointed out clearly on those other pages? We can always add in a sentence somewhere that says Legion is the source of that info, but the thought hadn't occurred to me at the time of the edit. And yes, the section heading is now obsolete, I've got no problem with removing it. -- Commdor (Talk) 00:28, December 7, 2010 (UTC) :::That is kind of what I'm getting at because we have where information is acquired in other articles. One example is the rachni article. The first paragraph gives new informatio and where it is acquired from. Since that info does come from Legion, I do feel that it has to be stated somewhere as I believe that there are other cases of this as well. Also no objections on the reformatting. Lancer1289 00:46, December 7, 2010 (UTC) How is it now? Not much to it, but I think we need to avoid going off on a tangent about Legion when this article's subject is the Geth War. -- Commdor (Talk) 00:52, December 7, 2010 (UTC) :Now how exactly are we getting off on a tangent when we are discussing how to put information into this article? I have even found more places where information is stated as "According to" or something of that nature. One is the geth article itself, there are several occurrences; The krogan article has a few statements along the lines of "according to Wrex", there's also a few from Mordin as well; Quarian article, more stuff from Legion and some things from Tali; Sovereign's article, more from Legion. I'm sure I can find more examples, so I really fail to see how we are getting off topic at all when we are discussing the article's content and how to modify something to bring it in line with standards that are present in other articles. Lancer1289 01:07, December 7, 2010 (UTC) ::I meant something like explaining Legion's background and how came to possess this info, that would be going off on a tangent. I was pointing out that I thought simply saying "According to Legion..." was short, but saying anything more about Legion would be too much, so I think the way it is now is probably the best way to do it. I wasn't trying to start anything, honest. :P -- Commdor (Talk) 01:13, December 7, 2010 (UTC) :::Well given how you phrased your comment, I thought you were talking about not discussing Legion and we were getting away from talking about the content, so it was a misinterpertation. As to what I proposed being added was something like this: "According to Legion during a conversation with Commander Shepard and EDI in Mass Effect 2..." I personally like the second one as it gives player who to get access to the conversation. Just "according to Legion" just isn't enough, but that's me. It doesn't go into too much detail, but gives readers how to access the conversation themselves. Lancer1289 02:23, December 7, 2010 (UTC) ::::I'll leave that up to you, I've got no objections to tweaking the sentence. My only concern in this matter was eliminating that whole unnecessary section, so in that regard I'm stamping this "mission accomplished". -- Commdor (Talk) 02:30, December 7, 2010 (UTC) :::::I'll tweek the sentence then. Lancer1289 02:35, December 7, 2010 (UTC) Geth Uprising versus Geth War I recall the term Geth Uprising being used during in-game conversation on the mission on Haestrom, and would like permission to change the title of the subject to reflect that barring any other known in-game alternative.--KrimzonStriker 07:39, March 10, 2012 (UTC) : This might be a good idea, seeing as how there's another Geth War in ME3 that takes place, and to avoid confusion, calling this particular war the Geth Rebellion might be good. Stormkeeper ::I currently have some misgivings, but the only thing is to propose a move and see what happens. Lancer1289 17:19, March 10, 2012 (UTC) Well to avoid outright confusion another possible title for the current conflict in ME3 is the "War for Rannoch". I heard that term used too, but more as a statement (given its lowercase usage). Still, it is catchy, and pretty much sums up what the conflict is all about.--KrimzonStriker 21:21, March 10, 2012 (UTC) Edit: Slight correction, it was Geth Uprising that was used. In the Titled form btw--KrimzonStriker 23:57, March 12, 2012 (UTC)